UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 11TH October 2017

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    19 0 7 9 0 3

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2017074

    King Air

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Tutor

    (HQ Air Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Tutor pilot turned into conflict with the King Air.

    Contributory: The Tutor pilot did not positively establish the location of the King Air before turning.

    B
    2017081

    C150

    (Civ Pte)

    Cirrus SR20

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the C150 pilot. C
    2017105

    AS365

    (HEMS)

    EC135

    (HEMS)

    London FIR

    (G)

    Both pilots continued into conflict. C
    2017108

    C152

    (Civ Club)

    Untraced Glider

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the C152 pilot and probably a late sighting by the glider pilot. C
    2017110

    AW189

    (HEMS)

    PA28

    (Civ Trg)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G. E
    2017113

    PA28

    (Civ Club)

    Cabri G2

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the PA28 pilot and a non-sighting by the Cabri G2 pilot. B
    2017114

    JS41

    (CAT)

    EC135

    (HEMS)

    Valley ATZ

    (G)

    The Valley Supervisor was concerned by the proximity of the aircraft. E
    2017115

    Squirrel

    (HQ Air Trg)

    C172

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Squirrel pilot flew into conflict with the C172. C
    2017117

    JS41

    (CAT)

    Typhoon

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the JS41 pilot and a non-sighting by the Typhoon pilot.

    Contributory: 1. A lack of Traffic Information to the Typhoon pilot by the Swanwick controller. 2. The Typhoon SSR unserviceability meant Moray had no altitude information and TCAS was not available to the JS41. 3. The Swanwick controller was distracted by the lack of Typhoon SSR. 4. The Swanwick controller did not assimilate that the JS41 was descending.

    B
    2017120

    Tucano

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Gyrocopter

    (Civ Club)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Tucano lead pilot inadvertently flew into conflict with the Gyrocopter due to incorrect situational awareness.

    Contributory: Ambiguous phraseology from ATC led the Tucano pilot to believe the gyrocopter was conducting a PAR.

    B
    2017127

    Decathlon

    (Civ Pte)

    R44

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the R44 pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the Decathlon pilot. B
    2017130

    DR400

    (Civ Club)

    C172

    (Civ Club)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. C
    2017131

    Arcus Glider

    (Civ Pte)

    C310

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by both pilots. B
    2017134

    Merlin

    (RN)

    Hughes 500

    (Civ Pte)

    Merryfield ATZ

    (G)

    The Hughes 500 pilot flew through the Merryfield ATZ and into conflict with the Merlin. C
    2017136

    Learjet

    (Civ Comm)

    AlphaJet

    (MoD ATEC)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Learjet pilot was concerned by the proximity of the AlphaJet.

    Contributory: ATC was distracted to the extent that timely Traffic Information was not passed.

    C
    2017139

    C172

    (Civ Pte)

    C152

    (Civ Club)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the C172 pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the C152 pilot. C
    2017140

    EV97

    (Civ Trg)

    C152

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. E
    2017144

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Tornado

    (HQ Air Ops)

    LFA7

    (G)

    A conflict in the Low-Flying System. B
    2017154

    Apache AH1 x 2

    (HQ JHC)

    CAP10

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Apache pilot was concerned by the proximity of the CAP10. C

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 11th October 2017

    Download below sheet as PDF

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    16 4 7 4 0 1

     

    Airprox

    Number

    Date

    Time (UTC)

    Aircraft

    (Operator)

    Object

    Location

    Description

    Altitude

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Pilot/Controller Report

    Reported Separation

    Reported Risk

    Cause/Risk Statement

    ICAO

    Risk

    2017173

    26 Jul 17

    1606

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00023W

    Hounslow

    700ft

    Heathrow CTR

    (D)

    The B787 pilot reports on final approach to Heathrow, at 2.5 DME from the threshold of RW27L, when a drone was sighted just below and to the right of the aircraft. The Drone passed below and to the right.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/20m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B787.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017174

    24 Jul 17

    2035

    B757

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5112N 00245W

    15nm SW Bristol

    4800ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The B757 pilot reports that he was routing direct to Bristol RW27 in a descent under the control of Bristol ATC.  Approx 3nm SW of the Mendip transmitter, at 4800ft, he saw a red anti-collision light and a white light was spotted below and right of the aircraft.  There were no TCAS indications, but initially they assumed it was a light aircraft, and it appeared to be on a reciprocal course.  As they passed abeam it was apparent that the object was closer and smaller than initially assumed. A distinctive drone shape could be seen, with dark coloured arms and a suspended load, possibly a camera along with a red lateral light and a central white light.  With this level of detail it would suggest they were fairly close, although distance was hard to judge with light levels, speed and startle factor.  It passed below and beyond the right wing-tip.

     

    The Bristol Controller reports that the B757 was under a Deconfliction Service, inbound to Bristol from the southwest.  When about 8nm to the south of the airfield he reported a drone on his right-hand side between his aircraft and the Wells mast. Just prior to this there had been a primary contact in the vicinity of the Wells mast, which had faded from contact after a couple of seconds.

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS limits and was endangering other aircraft at that altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B757.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017175

    30 Jul 17

    1424

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5558N 00320W

    Cramond

    500ft

    Edinburgh CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports conducting a visual approach to Edinburgh RW24 when a white or grey drone with 2 rotors was seen in the 12 o’clock at 1-1½nm range. A go-around was considered but the drone was moving from left to right and passed clear of the aircraft down the right side. The occurrence was reported to the Edinburgh Tower controller.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A319.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017176

    27 Jul 17

    2147

    B757

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5553N 00323W

    4nm SW Edinburgh

    3500ft

    Edinburgh CTR

    (D)

    The B757 pilot reports that he was climbing out from Edinburgh. On passing 3500ft, during the flap retraction phase, the First Officer observed a drone to the left of the aircraft at a distance of about 500m.  ATC were informed.

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits, in the vicinity of an airfield departure lane, and was endangering other aircraft at that altitude and location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B757.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

     
    C
    2017177

    29 Jul 17

    1845

    Drone Unk ac

    5313N 00202W

    4nm SE Macclesfield Forest

    200ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The drone operator reports that he was flying his drone at approximately 120ft vertically and 100m horizontally when he heard an incoming helicopter, he spotted the helicopter about 2 miles away and decided that flying his drone back to his location could not be done in time. As he was on a ridge he descended the drone below the ridge level and the helicopter passed over his drone.  

     

    Reported Separation: 300ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The drone was entitled to be operated at that location and altitude, and was not endangering other aircraft by being flown in proximity to airfield approach paths etc, and so the Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G airspace.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the drone operator’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his ability to avoid the aircraft portrayed a situation where normal procedures and/or safety standards had applied.

    E
    2017178

    31 Jul 17

    0805

    B777

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5111N 00001E

    Lingfield

    2600ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B777 pilot reports conducting an ILS approach to Gatwick RW26L when a large silver or white drone was seen to pass abeam, down the right side of the aircraft, moving in a west to east direction. The pilot noted that there was no time to take avoiding action. The occurrence was reported to the Gatwick Tower controller and to the police on landing.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/30m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits and in the vicinity of an airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B777.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017184

    2 Jul 17

    1915

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5136N 00021W

    Lambourne Hold

    FL113

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports descending on the outbound leg of the Lambourne hold when a drone was seen on the right side.

       

    Reported Separation: 1000ft V/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS limits and was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A320.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017189

    13 Aug 17

    1830

    AW139

    (SAR)

    Unk Obj

    5147N 00312W

    Ebbw Vale

    2800ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AW139 pilot reports that they were flying a casualty to hospital when the LHS pilot, who was the PF called a verbal warning and manoeuvred the aircraft to avoid what appeared to be multiple small white parachutes. All crew members saw the objects, which appeared to be approx 1m wide with small suspended loads. No impact was heard or felt and post landing checks did not reveal any damage. As quickly as the aircraft had come into conflict with the objects, then the objects had passed, due to there being a casually on board no attempt was made to turn around and investigate further.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/200m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    UKAB Secretariat: There were no NOTAMs outlining any paradropping activity for this date and time, or indeed for the week either side of the incident.

     

    Cause: Being unknown objects, the Board agreed that they were not under direct control and that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the objects portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017193

    16 Aug 17

    1050

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 00015W

    6.5nm Finals RW27 Heathrow

    1800ft

    London  CTR

    (D)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was flying an ILS Approach to Heathrow RW27L.  Passing about 2000ft and 7nms on the approach he noticed an object to the RHS of the aircraft.  The object passed under the right wing, about 200ft below and was either stationary or heading east.  It was white and moved through the air steadily, unlike a bird. He identified it as a drone, but it moved too quickly to get any further details.  The aircraft behind also reported it on frequency.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/200ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown near to the practical VLOS limits, in the vicinity of an airfield approach path, and was endangering other aircraft at that altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A320.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017195

    14 Jul 17

    1920

    A319

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5056N 00003E

    Uckfield, Sussex

    FL70

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A319 pilot reports that he was holding at WILLO at FL070, ATC gave a heading of 280° and when passing southwest of the MAY VOR by 5nm the FO, in the right-hand seat noticed an object close to the aircraft.  He commented on the object to the Captain who then also saw it.  Both pilots made an assessment that the object was not close enough to hit the aircraft, and that they were on a trajectory to miss it. It was a black and shiny/metallic in colour and appeared to be a square/rectangular cube.  It appeared to be maintaining altitude and took a while (7 seconds) to pass by, making them believe it was hovering in a stationary position.  It was definitely not a weather balloon, but because they couldn’t make out any propellers on the side of the object, they weren’t sure whether it was a drone.  The FO alerted ATC, who passed the information on to the aircraft behind, however, they did not report seeing it.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/<500m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

     

    The TCC Controller reports that he didn’t remember the incident clearly.  He remembered that the A319 pilot reported an object at FL70, but was unable to identify it.  Other aircraft in the vicinity were then informed about it.

    Cause: Being an unknown object, the Board could not determine whether it was under direct control and therefore decided that the incident was best described as a conflict in Class A.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017199

    12 Aug 17

    1535

    A320

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5109N 00002E

    2nm NE East Grinstead

    FL080

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was passing FL080 in the climb when he saw a silver ball type object pass directly under the aircraft, very close. He reported it to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: Being an unknown object, the Board could not determine whether it was under direct control and therefore decided that the incident was best described as a conflict in Class A.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017204

    22 Aug 17

    1825

    Saab 2000

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5324N 00209W

    MCT VOR 053⁰ 5nm

    1500ft

    Manchester CTR

    (D)

    The Saab 2000 pilot reports that the aircraft was being configured for final approach into Manchester RW23R. Passing approximately 1500ft in the descent a drone was seen to pass the nose of the aircraft and down the right hand side. It was estimated to be within 50ft of the aircraft, white/silver in colour and estimated to be up to 2ft across in size. Remainder of approach continued normally after it was apparent that the drone had not struck the aircraft. Reported sighting to Manchester Tower on the radio after landing as there was no time to do so at the time as they were in the middle of configuring the aircraft for landing. The pilot called Manchester ATC by phone after landing to discuss the incident.

     

    Reported Separation: 20ft V/15m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the Saab 2000.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017207

    26 Aug 17

    1720

    C152

    (Civ Club)

    Drone

    5125N 00012E

    3nm SSW QE2 Bridge

    1800ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C152 pilot reports that he reported the matter at the time to Biggin Tower, having just changed frequency from Southend Radar. At the time he was heading inbound to the Biggin reporting point of Swanley. He did not personally notice the object, however it was seen by his passenger (a non-pilot who had been briefed to notify him of any traffic seen). Whilst communicating with Biggin Hill ATC, he was aware of his passenger paying particular attention to the environment to the starboard, and rapidly to the rear starboard. He looked in the same direction, yet could not see any other traffic. Once he had completed his transmission he was informed of the passing of a drone. He requested the Biggin Hill controller notify other ATS units in the area, which he kindly agreed to. Biggin Hill ATC clarified whether this was an Airprox, he informed them it was not, as at the time of reporting via the radio, he did not realise the small horizontal separation. He had since notified the ATC Manager at Biggin Hill (by email). Once on the ground he discussed the matter fully with his passenger and was informed that the object was vertically level with them, and as close as two or three light aircraft lengths from them horizontally, passing down their starboard side, and not seen again. The drone was described as about the size of a football, perhaps slightly larger and either blue or silver in colour. His passenger was confident it was a drone as had seen a drone before.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/18m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown near to practical VLOS limits. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017211

    28 Aug 17

    1650

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5130N 00218W

    17nm ENE Bristol Airport

    6000ft

    Bristol CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports in the descent towards Bristol when a blue/black drone was seen 1-200m ahead. There was insufficient time to react and the drone passed overhead the aircraft’s left side. The occurrence was reported to the Bristol Radar controller.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS limits and was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A319.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017213

    27 Aug 17

    1450

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5131N 00039W

    Burnham

    3500ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports departing Heathrow on a SID when the crew saw an orange and white object in the 12 o’clock, slightly below and at a range of about 300m. One of the pilots perceived the object to be a small drone. The object/drone passed directly under the right hand half of the nose and although its initial movement suggested that it would not collide with the B787, the pilot noted that there was no time to react. The occurrence was immediately reported to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 300ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS limits and in the vicinity of an airfield departure path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B787.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017214

    23 Aug 17

    1601

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5102N 00050W

    20nm NE SAM VOR

    FL120

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports the he was on the 077 radial from the SAM VOR and at FL120 when he saw a drone pass down the right-hand-side of the aircraft at between 50 and 100ft above them and 150-200ft laterally.  It was difficult to judge the exact proximity due to the speed of the event, in the time it took to communicate the drone’s existence to the First Officer it had passed, therefore there was no time for avoiding action. There was a clear silhouette of the drone against the grey sky, it was a small square shaped quadcopter, with either 6 or 8 arms. The height of the drone implied that it must have been a larger more powerful drone than average, and the pilot opined that it raised concerns about the consequences of one hitting the engines, or even the wing.  It was reported to ATC.  

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS limits and was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A320.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B

scroll down for separate Aircraft & Drone Summary Sheet